If we reduce people to pure levels of drive and motivation, maybe it’s a reasonable comparison.

However, in my experience the types of people who thrive in climbing the corporate ladder (Facebook included as a bureaucratic corporation) are very different from the types of people who seek out building their own successful companies. There’s less overlap between the two personality types than you might expect.

"would be capable of a staff engineer role at Facebook"

Completely different skill sets. The founder can be scrappy with web programming, knowing a myriad of frameworks and some really good css. He's good at selling, networking, getting people on board with his vision. Maybe his real value comes from his domain knowledge, which lets him succeed where others couldnt.

Its a completely different job. The staff engineer could start a database startup, cofound some highly technical startup. But his highly developed technology skills just arent that valuable in an early stage company. Hes not worth 500k at a startup. He doesnt provide the same value he does at Facebook.

Its mind blowing to run the math on how many people work these positions. For instance, I know for a fact that less than 650 people at UBS make more than 500k in investment banking. Take that number, and all the biggest banks, and you have less than 10k people making more than 500k in investment banking at the big banks. This is miniscule. Yet people talk about these careers like they are viable, or even worth the time and effort. They arent, unless you are top of your class at Harvard, have connections, or are irrational.

Engineering is different in terms of the number of positions, but still, the high IC comp is pretty rare once you run the math